Call to Disarm Citizens Violates Natural Rights

An un-preventable tragedy occurred in Las Vegas this week. A man who easily passed a background check bought legal weapons, ammunition, and accessories, then used them all in an illegal manner.

While most of the country mourned the dead, prayed for all of the victims and sought answers as to “why,” the anti-Second Amendment and gun control crowd immediately started their impossible demands. Their assumptions and imaginations could not wait for facts.

They call for “universal background checks” even though this man passed his.

They call for banning automatic weapons, even though they are already highly restricted and the killer didn’t use them.

They call for new laws even though the existing laws did nothing to prevent this massacre.

Homicide is illegal.

Shooting in public is illegal.

Terrorism is illegal.

This coward broke numerous laws, yet the left immediately demands more. To what end? No proposed law would have stopped the Vegas shooting.

As I’ve stated in numerous articles previously, “Laws have never stopped a single crime. They merely define the crimes so that they may be prosecuted in a court of law.” Most of these mass murderers kill themselves as soon as they see a good guy with a gun, whether it is a civilian or a police officer.

There is some mental block in the minds of Democrats and liberals that refuses to see that good people do not need laws to do the right thing, and criminals will always find a way around the laws or just outright ignore them.

Almost immediately, the leftists automatically call for the repeal or re-interpretation of the Second Amendment. One of their tactics is to use the “militia argument.” They use the prefatory phrase at the beginning of the Second Amendment to claim that only militia members should be armed, referencing the National Guard or Army reserves. The ridiculousness of this claim totally overlooks that the Second Amendment is the only amendment that specifically states “the right of the people.”

As most of us know, the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. It describes rights that are inherent to all humans. Whether you believe they were given to us by God, Mother Earth, or nature itself, they pre-exist governments of all kinds and belong to all humans.

These rights have also been violated or ignored since the dawn of time by kings, governments, and tyrants. Our wonderful country is the first in the world to recognize and prohibit violation of these discussed rights by our elected leaders.

The Bill of Rights does not actually grant us any rights. It merely keeps the government from violating them. The “militia argument” counters these basic facts. In a document that describes individual freedom, why would the founding fathers include governmental rights?

In regard to the anti-gun lobby’s “well-regulated” argument, that term is merely describing any militia that is necessary to defend our country, from external or internal threats. Well-regulated" was used to describe something as "functioning correctly" in the 1700-1800's. Leftists would do well to remember that the militia was organized from the armed citizenry. If there were no armed Americans in the late 1700’s, we would still be under British rule today. One of the main reasons that we revolted was Britain’s call for disarmament of the colonies. The founding fathers recognized that fact, hence the inclusion of the Second Amendment in our Constitution.

I would like use a similar statement as an example of their perversion of the language by using the “militia argument.” It is a statement that has circulated around the Internet and demonstrates the necessity of comprehension of English sentence structure:

“A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to make and eat food, shall not be infringed.”

In the example sentence, who has a right to the food? Is it a “well-balanced breakfast” or “the people”? If you think the well-balanced breakfast has a right to the food, you are letting your ideology show.

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” ― Alexander Hamilton

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." ― Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right.” ― Antonin Scalia, “District of Columbia v Heller" 2010

Our nation needs to understand that the evil acts of evil men, no matter how terrible, should never revoke the natural rights of good men. Disarming citizens only makes them defenseless, not safer. Disarming citizens makes them no longer citizens, but instead serfs. Disarming citizens means they no longer command the government, the government commands them.

John Cylc is a conservative Christian and eight year U.S. Army veteran who primarily speaks out on the Second Amendment, gun rights issues, and contemporary topics. Born and raised in Philadelphia, he currently resides with his wife and youngest son in the foothills of the Smoky Mountains in beautiful East Tennessee. He is the founder of ThirteenFox.com and a contributor to LifeZette. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.